Opinion

Editorial: Stand-your-ground laws should fall within reason

By York (Pa.) Daily Record, Digital First Media

Posted:
01/24/2014 01:34:03 PM EST

Protestors gathered March 22, 2013, early for a rally for Trayvon Martin, the black teenager who was fatally shot by a neighborhood watch captain in Sanford, Fla. In 2012, Florida's story of the year was George Zimmerman shooting Trayvon Martin. In 2013, it was Zimmerman's acquittal on charges that he murdered Martin. (Julie Fletcher, file/Associated Press)

In the early morning hours of Jan. 17, a couple of teenage boys, doing what teenage boys have done since the beginning of time, allegedly pulled the old ring-and-run-prank in Arendtsville, Pa.

According to news reports, they rang and ran while the homeowner, Eric Lee Steinour, answered the door.

Mr. Steinour, according to court documents, went looking for the kids, packing a 9 mm handgun. He allegedly caught up with them in the alley near his Main Street home and fired a shot. He told police he fired to scare the kids.

The bullet struck one of the kids, a 14-year-old freshman at Biglerville High School, in the foot. He will recover. It was just blind luck that the bullet wasn't fatal.

Mr. Steinour was charged with aggravated assault and other offenses. The courts will have to determine whether or not he is guilty of those charges.

In another case, in Franklin County, Pa., a man was charged with homicide on Christmas after he allegedly pursued another man who had broken into his house with an assault rifle. The case sparked outrage. There were those who believed the suspect was justified in shooting the man, half an hour after the initial confrontation.

Advertisement

Both cases immediately struck up a debate over the so-called “Castle Doctrine,” also known in Pennsylvania as the “Stand Your Ground” law. In the Arendtsville case, some experts have cast doubt on whether the law that expands the right to use lethal force in self-defense beyond a person's home, office or vehicle was applicable. Mr. Steinour does not appear to have faced the imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury, and so his response, as outlined in court documents, could be considered excessive. Again, that's ultimately a decision for the courts.

In the Franklin County case, authorities reported the man shot the alleged robber in the back, as the victim was running away. The shooting occurred outside the man's home and only after the man chased the suspected thief. Any imminent threat of bodily harm or death had passed, and police suggest the pursuer became the aggressor in this case, the one instigating the violence.

The law gives you the right to defend yourself with deadly force should you face a similar threat, removing your duty to retreat, which had formerly been an element of the law. It does not give you carte blanche to unleash fatal force at will, or at people who are running away from you.

Stand-your-ground laws have some flaws. Such a law apparently played a role in the acquittal of George Zimmerman for the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin in Florida. In that case, Mr. Martin was not armed and Mr. Zimmerman initiated the confrontation that led to the teen's death. Still, a Florida jury saw it differently and ruled, essentially, that self-defense extends to perceived threats from unarmed teenagers.

The Pennsylvania law, similar to the Florida law, may also have such flaws. But those might not be tested in the Arendtsville case, which doesn't appear to fall under self-defense. It would be extremely difficult to claim self-defense in an instance where you shoot at an unarmed person who is running away from you.

The “Castle Doctrine” law may not apply in this case, or even the Franklin County case. But it might play a small role in similar incidents. The law, and the sentiment behind it, has prompted many to worry that it has created an atmosphere where some gun owners believe they have the right to shoot first and ask questions later.

Clearly, that is not the intent of the law, and gun owners who responsibly exercise their right to bear arms understand that.

But still, in the minds of some, or in the heat of a moment of anger, the law appears to justify a Wild-West attitude toward wielding deadly force.

Welcome to your discussion forum: Sign in with a Disqus account or your social networking account for your comment to be posted immediately, provided it meets the guidelines. (READ HOW.)
Comments made here are the sole responsibility of the person posting them; these comments do not reflect the opinion of Nashoba Publishing. So keep it civil.